Comparing Whose Laws? Interrogating Biases in Comparative Law and Scholarship Through the Lens of Domestic Violence Workplace Leave

This article invites comparative scholars to reflect on the biases that bury legislative good practice. These biases and their consequences are demonstrated through the example of paid workplace leave for victims of domestic violence, comparing laws enacted between the Philippines ' reforms in 2004 and more recent developments in New Zealand (2018) and Australia (2022). Three reasons for these legislative biases are offered, the foremost being an English language ' imperialism ' where good practice legislation from Spain and Latin America has been overlooked. Second, a global ' gender equality bias ' has framed global North nations - particularly traditionally -influential Nordic ones - as world leaders, while ignoring other even highly ranked global South countries. Finally, international feminist scholarship has inadvertently fostered a perception of the global South as lacking women -centred law reform from which other jurisdictions can learn. To support these claims, in Part 3, three models for workplace leave for victims of violence are examined, a review that takes us from the Philippines and Spain to eight Spanishspeaking jurisdictions, valuable models enacted before these English-speaking nations that have been deemed legislative ' leaders ' in this domain. This article urges scholars of comparative law to see the potential for meaningful findings to be drawn from cross -border, multi -linguistic comparisons, requiring an active consciousness of the biases that must be overcome.